Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
Thanks
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:30:28 +0900, Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
The good news: This was discussed extensively in this forum
(/list/newsgroup) just last week. Also, the week before that. Also,
the
week before that.
The bad news: Despite over 30 years of technology research, nobody* has
ever discovered a method to go back in time and read old messages. If
only
there were a way, my friend… if only.
Sorry I can’t be more help.
*that asks this question
On Oct 7, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Igor K. wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Thanks
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Just keep using Java. It will be hard to read!
Jay L. wrote:
The bad news: Despite over 30 years of technology research, nobody* has
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer
Good post Jay L…
PS: Why not do it in Octal? That will make it hard for a lot of people
to
read, including your self hehe.
On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, “Igor K.” [email protected] wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
Why in the world are you using Ruby?
Ruby is meant to be joy and that’s why is pretty and therefore
readable.
I stick with John: Just keep using Java. It IS ugly and noone will
read it!
:-E
aalfred wrote:
Why in the world are you using Ruby?
Or, if you really want to mix and match, migrate some “critical”
algorithmic portions to C and compile them to executables and let your
script interface with the executable in one of the many ways that are
there.
That way, you protect some things, but get some of the benefits of Ruby
anyway.
Cheers,
Mohit.
10/8/2007 | 3:46 PM.
On Oct 7, 2007, at 13:30 , Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)… It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you’re serious.
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan D. wrote:
me know if you’re serious.
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it
in C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
John J. wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)… It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you’re serious.Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in
C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
No, he asked if Igor was serious. 
But seriously … sheesh … what the world needs more than anything
else is a language in which one can think of software and it
automatically appears, but only its creator can read it. We could call
it … uh … APL.
Am I as tired as I look?
John J. wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)… It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you’re serious.Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in
C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
Something tells me that $2500 is cheaper than the time you’d need to do
that, plus you’d still get to develop in Ruby.
On 10/9/07, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:
Yes, we’re serious. If you plan on making money off of software,
$2500 isn’t be much money, 100 sales at $25 each.
For the fact that obfuscation is pretty much pointless in the first
place,
anyone who is determined enough deserves to pay that kind of price tag
On Oct 8, 2007, at 21:35 , John J. wrote:
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write
it in C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
Yes, we’re serious. If you plan on making money off of software,
$2500 isn’t be much money, 100 sales at $25 each.
On Oct 9, 12:47 am, Ryan D. [email protected] wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)… It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you’re serious.
Have you done performance profiling on the compiled executables? Any
improvement over running in the interpreter? If so that might be a
selling point.
Cheers,
Wincent
John J. wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan D. wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)… It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you’re serious.Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in
C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
The price isn’t the really interesting point here - if lack of this kind
of obfuscation would be the show-stopper for an ISV, this price isn’t
all that unaffordable (especially in the US I guess). But this has
alerady been pointed out.
My main concern would be, after reading the announcement page, that
based on the software’s restrictions (which is printed with half the
font size near the bottom of the page), I guess there’s virtually no
Ruby code which meets those requirements. If for no other reason, just
because it uses libraries which aren’t designed with that in mind.
Explicit returns everywhere? No code blocks? If I have to pay $2500 just
for the opportunity to rewrite all my code in a really C-like manner,
just so that it can be translated into actual C, then I’d say it’s
really not worth it. In that case, I could actually have written it in C
in the first place.
Please correct me if I’m overly wrong here.
mortee
On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:22 AM, mortee wrote:
If for no other reason, just
because it uses libraries which aren’t designed with that in mind.
if you are using libraries it’s extremely likely that the license of
said libs will prohibit that which you seek. fyi.
On Oct 9, 2007, at 03:35 , Wincent C. wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:47 am, Ryan D. [email protected] wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)… It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you’re serious.Have you done performance profiling on the compiled executables? Any
improvement over running in the interpreter? If so that might be a
selling point.
Its roughly the same due to use of rb_funcall().
On Oct 9, 2007, at 12:15 PM, ara.t.howard wrote:
On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:22 AM, mortee wrote:
If for no other reason, just
because it uses libraries which aren’t designed with that in mind.if you are using libraries it’s extremely likely that the license
of said libs will prohibit that which you seek. fyi.
+10 ara!
Indeed, this may be part of the goal of obfuscation at times!
Circumventing open source licensing…
… or does obfuscation already do that???
Eric H. wrote:
Why would you obfuscate external libraries? You only need to obfuscate
your intellectual property. Leave everything else in ruby.
I’m not sure how your software works, and whether it’s possible to
obfuscate only those parts that one would want hidden.
However, the argument still applies that (at least in its current state)
it can’t handle some of the constructs that make it worthwile coding in
Ruby, and which most probably appear at many places in any Ruby code not
written directly in C coding style. So it still seems to be true that if
one codes against your software’s requirements, she looses the main
advantages Ruby provides.
mortee
On Oct 9, 2007, at 09:22 , mortee wrote:
The price isn’t the really interesting point here - if lack of this
kind of obfuscation would be the show-stopper for an ISV, this
price isn’t all that unaffordable (especially in the US I guess).
But this has alerady been pointed out.My main concern would be, after reading the announcement page, that
based on the software’s restrictions (which is printed with half
the font size near the bottom of the page), I guess there’s
virtually no Ruby code which meets those requirements. If for no
other reason, just because it uses libraries which aren’t designed
with that in mind.
Why would you obfuscate external libraries? You only need to
obfuscate your intellectual property. Leave everything else in ruby.
Igor K. wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
The JRuby compiler can compile to Java bytecode and still run as normal;
that might be an option for you. The resulting bytecode can only
partially be decompiled into JRuby runtime code and can’t currently be
decompiled to Ruby at all.
It’s on trunk, will be in release 1.1 next month.
- Charlie